The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2406.12663 · v1 · pith:DLECZMHE · submitted 2024-06-18 · cs.CV · cs.AI

Do More Details Always Introduce More Hallucinations in LVLM-based Image Captioning?

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:DLECZMHErecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords imagecaptioningdecodingdetailsmetricsvisualalwaysdebate
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) excel in integrating visual and linguistic contexts to produce detailed content, facilitating applications such as image captioning. However, using LVLMs to generate descriptions often faces the challenge of object hallucination (OH), where the output text misrepresents actual objects in the input image. While previous studies attribute the occurrence of OH to the inclusion of more details, our study finds technical flaws in existing metrics, leading to unreliable evaluations of models and conclusions about OH. This has sparked a debate on the question: Do more details always introduce more hallucinations in LVLM-based image captioning? In this paper, we address this debate by proposing a novel decoding strategy, Differentiated Beam Decoding (DBD), along with a reliable new set of evaluation metrics: CLIP-Precision, CLIP-Recall, and CLIP-F1. DBD decodes the wealth of information hidden in visual input into distinct language representations called unit facts in parallel. This decoding is achieved via a well-designed differential score that guides the parallel search and candidate screening. The selected unit facts are then aggregated to generate the final caption. Our proposed metrics evaluate the comprehensiveness and accuracy of image captions by comparing the embedding groups of ground-truth image regions and generated text partitions. Extensive experiments on the Visual Genome dataset validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating that it produces detailed descriptions while maintaining low hallucination levels.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Can VLMs Truly Forget? Benchmarking Training-Free Visual Concept Unlearning

    cs.CV 2026-04 conditional novelty 8.0

    VLM-UnBench demonstrates that prompt-based training-free unlearning in VLMs leaves forget accuracy near the no-instruction baseline except under oracle conditions that reveal the target concept.